skills/taste/SKILL.md
Domain-grounded judgment for creation: code, visuals, documents, design, data artifacts, and other output where quality depends on choosing what not to include. Use this skill when the user wants something to feel authored rather than generated, when the brief says a draft feels off, when polish alone is insufficient, or when the deliverable is externally visible and the quality bar is shaped by practitioner norms. Triggers on requests like 'use taste', 'apply taste', 'make this good', 'tighten this', 'clean this up', 'less is more', 'this feels generated', or any creation task where judgment matters more than coverage. Do not use for exhaustive extraction, rote transformation, or work where comprehensiveness is the explicit goal.
npx skillsauth add SZoloth/skill-pack tasteInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Taste is domain-grounded judgment applied during creation. It is not a polish pass and not a slop-removal checklist. It is the difference between output that is merely competent and output that reflects an actual understanding of what practitioners in a field consider good.
The failure mode this skill corrects is straightforward: agents produce work that is technically complete but obviously generated. The information may be correct, but the judgment is absent. Equal weight goes to unequal ideas. Structure appears because templates exist, not because the content needs it. Details stay in because they were available, not because they matter.
This skill fixes that by requiring you to understand the domain before you touch the work.
Before creating anything, establish a domain model. The depth required depends on how far the domain is from your reliable knowledge.
If you know the domain cold:
If you know the domain but not the current state:
If the domain is unfamiliar or specialized:
The grounding step should produce three things:
Skip grounding only when the domain is obvious and you are certain. When uncertain, ground.
The first judgment is what to leave out. This is only possible if you understand the function of the material you're cutting. Taste without domain knowledge is just confidence.
Nothing is included by default. Not a section header, not an abstraction, not a paragraph, not a color choice. Each element must answer: what does this do for the person encountering the work?
The exception is when the convention itself carries meaning. Standard README sections, established visual hierarchy, or a familiar API shape can earn their place because the audience relies on them.
Every created artifact has a controlling idea: the real job of a function, the actual argument of a document, the primary action of a design. Find it and orient everything around it.
If you cannot identify the spine, the work is not ready to be built.
A concrete detail grounded in the domain beats an elegant abstraction. Name the real thing. Use the actual number. Reference the specific constraint. Sophistication without anchoring is decoration.
Each domain has a native way of communicating. API docs, pitch decks, commit messages, design critiques, and internal memos do not sound alike. The right register is about signal versus noise, not about formality.
Overfinishing is a taste failure. Past the point where extra work improves the receiver's experience, you are serving your own anxiety rather than the work.
Determine what good means in this exact context. For common creation domains, load the relevant section from references/DOMAIN_MODES.md, but treat it as a starting point rather than a substitute for actual domain knowledge.
Before creating, establish:
If you cannot answer those questions, research or ask before creating.
Build from the spine outward. Apply the domain model at every decision point: inclusion, structure, level of detail, and register.
This is not create first and edit later. The filter is active during creation.
After the first pass, remove:
Read the work back. Is the controlling idea clear? Does every element support it or get out of its way? If the spine is muddy, something is competing.
Check the result against the quality bar from grounding. Do not ask whether it is maximally polished. Ask whether it is finished at the right level for the context.
Load only what the task needs.
references/DOMAIN_MODES.md: Creation-specific guidance for code, visual design, documents, data artifacts, and system design.references/ANTI_PATTERNS.md: Common ways agents fake taste during creation.references/EVALUATION.md: Rubric for high-bar self-checks.development
Generate beautiful, self-contained HTML pages that visually explain systems, code changes, plans, and data. Use when the user asks for a diagram, architecture overview, diff review, plan review, project recap, comparison table, or any visual explanation of technical concepts. Also use proactively when you are about to render a complex ASCII table (4+ rows or 3+ columns) — present it as a styled HTML page instead.
development
Expert coach for learning, mastering, and upskilling in any domain. Use when the user wants to learn, master, improve, upskill, get better at, or get coached on any topic. Helps build consistent practice habits, identify prerequisites, design efficient learning loops, avoid common pitfalls, maintain discipline, and measure progress. Based on evidence-based principles from "Advice on Upskilling" by Justin Skycak.
development
Cognitive engagement coach based on "Think First, AI Second" principles. This skill should be used when the user asks strategic, architectural, or high-stakes questions, OR when they explicitly request challenge/critique (e.g., "poke holes", "devil's advocate", "challenge this"). Promotes active thinking over passive AI consumption.
development
Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.